Skip to main content
Glama
BlueWaterCorp

RiskModels

by BlueWaterCorp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

RiskModels Single-Stock Decomposition

riskmodels_decompose
Read-only

Break down one US stock's risk into market, sector, subsector, and residual layers; optionally get ETF hedge ratios and dollar hedge notionals for a position.

Instructions

Use when you want one stock's risk split into market, sector, subsector and residual layers, or the ETF hedge legs for a dollar position in it. Not for several stocks (use riskmodels_compare) or a portfolio (use riskmodels_analyze_portfolio). Returns, from POST /decompose, each layer's explained-risk share, hedge ratio and hedge ETF, chart-ready data and a one-line summary; with dollars it returns the ETF hedge notionals for that position at each level (hedge ratio times dollars). End-of-day data, refreshed after each US market close. Price: $0.005 per call.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYesUS stock ticker symbol, case-insensitive, e.g. NVDA
dollarsNoPosition size in US dollars, a positive number, e.g. 10000. Omit for the decomposition alone

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.12
    • addedInput schema / properties / dollars
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Position size in US dollars, a positive number, e.g. 10000. Omit for the decomposition alone",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / ticker / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker symbol, e.g. NVDA or AAPL"New value: +"US stock ticker symbol, case-insensitive, e.g. NVDA"
  2. First observedv1.0.11

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: it discloses the POST /decompose endpoint despite being read-only, end-of-day freshness ('refreshed after each US market close'), and a concrete price of $0.005 per call. Cost and data-freshness disclosure go well beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the use case, then exclusions, then return shape, freshness and pricing. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly long, yet nothing is redundant with structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so clearly (explained-risk share, hedge ratio, hedge ETF, chart-ready data, one-line summary, hedge notionals when dollars is supplied). Combined with freshness, cost and endpoint disclosure, nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic effect of the optional parameter ('with dollars it returns the ETF hedge notionals for that position at each level (hedge ratio times dollars)'), connecting an input to a concrete output beyond the schema's 'position size' wording.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the specific resource (one stock's risk split into market, sector, subsector and residual layers, plus ETF hedge legs for a dollar position) and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by name (riskmodels_compare for several stocks, riskmodels_analyze_portfolio for portfolios). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Unambiguous when/when-not: 'Use when you want one stock's risk...' followed by 'Not for several stocks (use riskmodels_compare) or a portfolio (use riskmodels_analyze_portfolio).' It even conditions the hedge-leg behavior on supplying dollars.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools